Author
Topic: The Value of Experienced Soldiers (Read 522 times)

So the topic was brought up, and discussed, and eventually derailed, but how do we make soldiers valuable in and of themselves?

Higher experience troops should have value more than just doing slightly more damage. I'm toying with the idea of making them SLIGHTLY more survivable, but part of me likes the fact that a recruit, a veteran, or a first one all take a serious wound when they take an arrow to the eye.

We could expand the existing capture system for first ones to include more experienced soldiers, maybe assign them ranks based on experience gained, and make it so that you can store prisoners in cities (something I was already debating). You could then use them as bargaining chips between realms.

Big fan of any ideas that builds a stronger tie between player and soldiers.

Would it be easier to add a building to train veterans? So you can train your experienced troops into a higher level of warrior? Training could increase power, defense, and the Sir Robbin school of running away. Any soldier could be trained in this but its ability would be scaled based on experience?

Higher experience troops should have value more than just doing slightly more damage. I'm toying with the idea of making them SLIGHTLY more survivable, but part of me likes the fact that a recruit, a veteran, or a first one all take a serious wound when they take an arrow to the eye.

As much as I like these little details like consistent mortals who earn xp, please don't buff the veterans like that. The fact that even the best soldiers eventually die is the only thing that gives younger realm a chance to ever get on even footing with old ones and prevents certain people from farming xp on their soldiers ad nauseam via slumbering nobles or orchestrated battles.Let this added value be mostly cosmetic.

I just had a relatively close -- though I was still outnumbered -- battle where my primary character's soldiers all had 40+ experience. My noble was wounded. My men fought to the last, so I was left with 15 or so heavily wounded soldiers left.

Figuring out a way to have them instead retreat in an organized manner would increase their value, because they might sustain lighter injuries during the retreat phase OR at the very least inflict casualties to the enemies as they try to break ranks and pursue.

Additionally, if some sort of basic unit settings could be added -- for example, choosing to allow the enemy quarter. During the retreat phase, inexperienced soldiers might pursue them anyway but experienced soldiers would instead hold their ground.

In most cases, experienced soldiers would be disciplined and obey orders. Inexperienced soldiers might be impetuous. Impetuous levies basically lost Harold Godwinson the Battle of Hastings, when they pursued the enemy after they managed to break a flank! William's well trained and disciplined, as tired and broken as they were, reformed, and in turn eradicated the pursuing forces. Harold lost the flank, and he did not have enough of his more elite housecarls to defend. He was generally considered to be outnumbered, but almost won until those events.

In the same vein as additional soldier settings, experienced soldiers might have more options available than less experienced soldiers. This would also make allowing advanced training posts and decaying experience (unless earned in battle) viable.

Experienced soldiers could lose or break equipment less.If weapon bonuses vs armor or on terrain, etc, eventually exist, experienced soldiers could get minor boosts to this bonus. Same if formations are added.

If ranges are factored into the battle system eventually, experienced archers might have a longer effective range.

And as a closing note, on my thoughts about an organized retreat and my opening statement:Lost battles almost always seem to result in the losing party losing nearly all to all of their soldiers; trying to kill/wound them to a man should carry a risk, and having experienced soldiers somehow subvert this risk could be huge! I am not saying the winning party should not have a significant advantage after a victory, mind you; they generally should. Though a smaller force that managed to beat a larger force might not end up with any manpower advantage.

The cliff between established realms and the rest can be a problem, as I can attest to with a realm that through various means has had every facet of its army and military wiped out aside from a handful of men in a few forest villages in Renneval and Falconreach. Heavies, Cavalry and Experience are the main forms of stored wealth, and fighting against that kind of stuff is difficult.

The point that I raised to various people a while back is that experience should really be thought of as a veterancy bonus rather than anything else, soldiers with personal history that have survived numerous conflicts etc etc. If it were possible, I'd be an advocate in favour of a global hard xp reset when more XP farming techniques are disabled. Whilst the bonus isn't substantial at the highest tiers, with common troops the disparity between experienced and inexperienced soldiers is significant, and after large scale systematic XP farming (normally against slumbering First Ones) many people have vast numbers of troops with far higher experience than they should do. They have no history, but they do have stats. Older nations have their infinite corps of veteran Heavy Infantry and I understand that, but they are not the issue at hand.

Logged

22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Radovid's like you22:34 - Roran Hawkins: but then insane22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Dijkstra is like you

[size=78%]They ARE weaker realms for a reason. Being new or weak, they have to get strong with armies or politics or they do not cause trouble and draw negative attention to themselves. Sort of a big part of the game. I mean if I come at you with 1000 heavy cavalry, does it really matter that 50 of them have experience over 100?[/size]

If that argument is deemed valid... two things come to mind.

1. When they reach X number of experience, can a tally be ran that shows how well they did in battle? Did they always run, were they ruthless killers, half and half? Let that be the factor that says if they get a perk or not. I dont know that this information is stored?

2. What is the life expectancy of a mortal? Is there one or is it just an idea that they are not mortals because they can die in combat? Do they die with starvation or just move away? Birth rates? Point being that a soldier could be given an expiration date.